On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 08:31:21 +0800 Patrick Lauer <patr...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 01/10/2014 08:16 AM, hero...@gentoo.org wrote: > > Igor <lanthrus...@gmail.com> writes: > > > >> The ebuilds have approximately the same time to install, the > >> failure rate is about the same, emerge is getting slower. > > > > I am curious about the slowness of emerge. > > > > How about profile the portage and rewrite the time-crucial part in > > C/C++, or ideally, borrowing the counterpart from paludis? How > > feasible is that? > > Last I checked paludis wasn't faster - on average portage was a few > percents faster.
Your benchmark was comparing uncached behaviour, where bash is the slow part and which users don't see. You were also not comparing like with like -- any benchmarks of this nature should be taken with a heavy pinch of salt, since Portage with everything turned on does less validation that Paludis does with everything turned off... -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
